Stephen Roy

OK, all kidding aside. Miss Baker: Do you think you could convince him to cool it?

Evidently, it is already superior!

If you can't see the dishonesty of your methodology, I can't help you. Come back when you are up-to-speed on the evidence.

"This is a nice illustration of the deceptive practices of Stephen Roy. In earlier work, Ed Haslam talked about the use of Ferrie's apartment as a lab. Since then, he has uncovered additional evidence that explains that, while Ferrie's apartment was used for many of the experiments (killing mice and extracting their tumors, for example), the primary lab was located across the street and down from his apartment, as I explained in the post just before his! Since Haslam has acquired new evidence about how these things were being done, which he has explained in later editions of his book, Roy tells us that he is only going to talk about the mistaken earlier edition! How outrageous is that? This is a nice example of someone not letting their prior probs be affected by new evidence, because it would cause them to have to modify their position. This tells me that Roy is not seeking the truth but attempting to distort it, which is deplorable."

How dare you. Who do you think you are, speaking to me in such a condescending way?

"Deceptive practices...outrageous...attempting to distort [truth]...deplorable"

I made it crystal clear that I was speaking about the research process in the only two editions I own, and I commented in a restrained and polite way.

And I noted that I have ordered the newer edition.

Knock off the condescension until your familiarity with the New Orleans evidence equals mine.

Great, great. I am in the presence of greatness.

Start by telling me all you know about David Ferrie.

Then tell me the evidence Haslam offers to support the claim that Ferrie had an underground lab in his apartment.

Then tell me about the interviews you've done with the New Orleans witnesses.

Stephen,

Shame on you for asking Fetzer for anything resembling accurate evidence. When his greatness speaks you are to follow BLINDLY please try to remember this in the future.

Mike

Oh, you're right. I've been so wrong. How could I possibly think that twenty-some-odd years of acquiring every Ferrie document I could find, of interviewing every surviving acquaintance of Ferrie I could find, of acquiring reams of unpublished stuff about Ferrie might qualify me to have an opinion on these matters, in contrast to...

Evidently, it is already superior!

If you can't see the dishonesty of your methodology, I can't help you. Come back when you are up-to-speed on the evidence.

"This is a nice illustration of the deceptive practices of Stephen Roy. In earlier work, Ed Haslam talked about the use of Ferrie's apartment as a lab. Since then, he has uncovered additional evidence that explains that, while Ferrie's apartment was used for many of the experiments (killing mice and extracting their tumors, for example), the primary lab was located across the street and down from his apartment, as I explained in the post just before his! Since Haslam has acquired new evidence about how these things were being done, which he has explained in later editions of his book, Roy tells us that he is only going to talk about the mistaken earlier edition! How outrageous is that? This is a nice example of someone not letting their prior probs be affected by new evidence, because it would cause them to have to modify their position. This tells me that Roy is not seeking the truth but attempting to distort it, which is deplorable."

How dare you. Who do you think you are, speaking to me in such a condescending way?

"Deceptive practices...outrageous...attempting to distort [truth]...deplorable"

I made it crystal clear that I was speaking about the research process in the only two editions I own, and I commented in a restrained and polite way.

And I noted that I have ordered the newer edition.

Knock off the condescension until your familiarity with the New Orleans evidence equals mine.

Great, great. I am in the presence of greatness.

Start by telling me all you know about David Ferrie.

Then tell me the evidence Haslam offers to support the claim that Ferrie had an underground lab in his apartment.

Then tell me about the interviews you've done with the New Orleans witnesses.

If you can't see the dishonesty of your methodology, I can't help you. Come back when you are up-to-speed on the evidence.

"This is a nice illustration of the deceptive practices of Stephen Roy. In earlier work, Ed Haslam talked about the use of Ferrie's apartment as a lab. Since then, he has uncovered additional evidence that explains that, while Ferrie's apartment was used for many of the experiments (killing mice and extracting their tumors, for example), the primary lab was located across the street and down from his apartment, as I explained in the post just before his! Since Haslam has acquired new evidence about how these things were being done, which he has explained in later editions of his book, Roy tells us that he is only going to talk about the mistaken earlier edition! How outrageous is that? This is a nice example of someone not letting their prior probs be affected by new evidence, because it would cause them to have to modify their position. This tells me that Roy is not seeking the truth but attempting to distort it, which is deplorable."

How dare you. Who do you think you are, speaking to me in such a condescending way?

"Deceptive practices...outrageous...attempting to distort [truth]...deplorable"

I made it crystal clear that I was speaking about the research process in the only two editions I own, and I commented in a restrained and polite way.

And I noted that I have ordered the newer edition.

Knock off the condescension until your familiarity with the New Orleans evidence equals mine.

"This is a nice illustration of the deceptive practices of Stephen Roy. In earlier work, Ed Haslam talked about the use of Ferrie's apartment as a lab. Since then, he has uncovered additional evidence that explains that, while Ferrie's apartment was used for many of the experiments (killing mice and extracting their tumors, for example), the primary lab was located across the street and down from his apartment, as I explained in the post just before his! Since Haslam has acquired new evidence about how these things were being done, which he has explained in later editions of his book, Roy tells us that he is only going to talk about the mistaken earlier edition! How outrageous is that? This is a nice example of someone not letting their prior probs be affected by new evidence, because it would cause them to have to modify their position. This tells me that Roy is not seeking the truth but attempting to distort it, which is deplorable."

How dare you. Who do you think you are, speaking to me in such a condescending way?

"Deceptive practices...outrageous...attempting to distort [truth]...deplorable"

I made it crystal clear that I was speaking about the research process in the only two editions I own, and I commented in a restrained and polite way.

And I noted that I have ordered the newer edition.

JF said: This is a nice illustration of the deceptive practices of Stephen Roy.

It is my understanding that the Davie Ferrie of Stephen Roy's research was not even acquainted with Lee Oswald. He can correct me if I am mistaken. However, if Roy chooses not to look into evidence of conspiracy, how shall we weigh whatever else he has to say?

>Sigh<

What I've said is that, on one side, we have several people who have claimed that they associated in 1963; On the other, we have Ferrie denying it (except for a brief brush in the CAP in 1955) and his friends saying they never knew of such a 1963 relationship.

Barb J. wrote:

A major problem with this is that the Kennedy's arrival at Love Field was only televised live

on Dallas/Ft. Worth TV stations.

As a DFW resident, I believe that this statement is not true. Gary Mack would know. A

live hookup in those days would require a special microwave signal hookup and large

bulky studio cameras, which were few back then. The local stations shot the arrival on FILM,

not live video feed. Ask Gary.

The only LIVE feed that weekend, as I recall, was the abortive LHO jail transfer and shooting.

Jack

To the best of my knowledge: Several DFW TV stations decided on a pool approach to coverage of the presidential visit. WFAA took their "mobile crusier" to Love Field. They carried the arrival live, and pool-fed it to the other stations. I'm not sure if any of the others carried it live. KRLD was going to be live at the Trade Mart, and pool-feed that to other stations.

Miss Baker:

I still do not wish to be drawn into a debate about this case. I will respond to points you have raised.

Since the time Mr. Haslam's first edition was published, and through an updated edition, my feelings about the book have not changed. (As I noted, I have ordered a copy of the newest edition.) Despite some implications in this thread that Haslam's book is the authoritative word on certain matters, I disagree, with all due respect to Mr. Haslam. One of the central claims of the first edition is that Ferrie had an "underground lab" in his apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway, but the book provides little, if any, evidence to support this. If I am missing any evidence from the book to support this claim, please correct me.

Jim Garrison did say that he saw mice cages there after Ferrie's death, but the first responders on that day (police, Assistant DAs, coroner (and others) did not see them, and the death scene pictures do not show them. I have to surmise that Garrison was mistaken. (Garrison had recently received a Gurvich memo mentioning mice cages in a earlier Ferrie home, in 1957.)

I think Haslam concedes today that Ferrie might not have written the cancer treatise, but in his first edition, he implied that Ferrie wrote it. Ferrie had a number of medical books and papers among his effects.

You mention the possibility of a medical lab in an apartment across the street. In this discussion, I am considering only Mr. Haslam's claim that Ferrie had such a lab in his apartment.

I don't understand your comments about why I "appeared" right after the JFK film came out, and why I have specialized in David Ferrie, because I've addressed these things many times. I was interested in the assassination from the time it happened. I read all of the first wave of critical literature, ordered the WC report and volumes, and even gave lectures and wrote articles, all from a CT perspective. In 1967, I became interested in Ferrie, thinking he may have been the mastermind. I read Weisberg, Epstein, Flammonde and other books dealing with Ferrie. Because the Ferrie info was scattered in many places, I started collating it into chronologies. I started ordering documents and contacting witnesses. In the 70s, several relevant reports and many new documents became available. At that point, I decided to write it all up as a biography. To help with that, I got a computer, which eventually led me to the Internet in the early 90s, which is when I "appeared." The only discussion groups I could find at that time were the newsgroups. At one point, Dave Reitzes wrote and asked if he could collate a few of my posts into an archive, and I consented. By then, I was known as a Ferrie specialist, and I was invited to speak on Ferrie a few times at conferences. My work on the biography is ongoing; It is hard to ever declare it "done"!!! I keep finding new things, contacting new people. The text is about 2/3 done (but open to revision, as it's on MSWord). Since I've married and had kids, it has cut my research/writing time down to just a few hours a week. I think that covers it.

As for Oswald, I'm no expert on any of those aspects of the case; I just keep up with the research and have opinions, like everybody else out here. I once felt Oswald was completely innocent; but I have come to feel that it is hard to support that belief unless a great deal of evidence was faked. And in re-reading Oswald's writings, I find his thought process very idiosyncratic.

So no, I'm not in league with anybody else. I do thank you for a few of the things you said in your post. Again, I'd prefer if you kept me out of the general debate. I just don't have time to plow through page after page of stuff.

Again, my whole point was that Haslam may be right, may be wrong. I recommend that interested readers seek alternate primary sources wherever possible.

There has been some discussion in this Forum about the books of Edward Haslam. In the interest of balance, I wanted to offer a few observations, some of which I have made in the past on this and other Forums, having researched in some detail some of the matters Haslam discusses. What follows is based on the "Mary, Ferrie and the Monkey Virus" first edition and a later update; I am in the process of obtaining "Dr. Mary's Monkey" for further examination. My comments mainly concern his Ferrie material, but I believe they may also apply in a more global sense.

The normal process is to marshall facts, then state some reasonable conclusion permitted by those facts. Haslam takes a less-rigorous stream of consciousness approach: He offers a few possible pieces of evidence, then asks a question in boldface (not always in strict conformity with the cited evidence). But a few pages later, the question has hardened into a fact, and it is combined with other pieces of evidence to form a new boldface question. And so on. The net effect is that the ideas he postulates are not always supported by (or not always the sole interpretation of) the cited evidence. Among the items for which the evidence is short are the notions that Ferrie authored a certain "cancer treatise" and that he had an "underground laboratory" in his apartment at 3330 Louisiana Avenue Parkway; yet, these are primary points of that first edition. I found myself wishing to hear more evidence to support these points.

He bases much of his Ferrie research on (one of several installments of) a report by the Southern Research Company. Helpful as it may be, the SRC report has certain limitations: It was commissioned by Eastern Air Lines for the purpose of digging up dirt to be used against Ferrie in a grievance hearing related to his dismissal by that airline; The focus of the report is very narrow in terms of Ferrie's overall activities; and the report itself contains errors.

I have been unsuccessful in attempting to initiate discussion with the author on these and other issues. I can't say one way or the other if his points are solid or not, but I would suggest that interested readers consult additional primary evidence where possible.

I ask once again not to be dragged into the discussion at this time. I'm going to ignore this one because it came from Howard Platzman who I respect, despite differences of opinion.

Thanks, Alan. You have turned up a lot of interesting stuff.

Surprising as it may seem, people who were friends in 1963 have remained friends over the years, with no encouragement from me.

I have chosen to stay out of this thread at this time. Miss Baker, the last thing you want is to draw me into this discussion.

That sounds like a threat. Why not just put your information out there without attaching heightened and personal rhetoric to it?

I am indicating that I don't want to be drawn into the discussion at this time.

Baker wrote (through Fetzer):

"An Example about Ferrie witnesses: I protested the contamination of Ferrie witnesses by

Stephen Roy (David Blackburst) who stated he gathered them together to talk (allowing

dissonances to be resolved-- and to be recorded ---but gahering witnesses together should

never be done by an honest researcher --...differences in tesimony vanish when they are

brought together, 'refreshing' each others' memories. When I told Mr. Roy that he had

done wrong, and that the method was reprehensible, he wroe tha he would do it again, that

it wasn;t wrong. Hence, none of the statements collected on tape or in interviews of

"Ferrie witnesses" after 1998 should be considered as pristine and untainted. Needless to

say, Mr. Roy does not like me very much. Wish I had never spoken to him about it...but it

was important to tell him that his methodology was poor."

My reply:

I have interviewed many of David Ferrie's known associates. Some years back, I stayed at the home of Ferrie Friend A, at his invitation. At one point, Friend A HIMSELF called Friends B, C and D (with whom he had spoken MANY times over the years, and all of whom I had previously interviewed alone) and took us all out for Tex-Mex food, and most of the conversation was about mundane matters. It would have been impolite and downright silly for me to refuse the invitation.

Surprising as it may seem, people who were friends in 1963 have remained friends over the years, with no encouragement from me.

I have chosen to stay out of this thread at this time. Miss Baker, the last thing you want is to draw me into this discussion.

Again, just a quick quote from the Forum Rules:

"(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned."

I presume this applies to inactive members who post through other people, too.

Reading back through some old JVB postings on this forum, I noted that

for all the CHRONOLOGY in her "book" she relied on someone named David

Blackburst to provide all the research. Yet we are told repeatedly that her

story is told WITHOUT consulting JFK research materials. Is "Blackburst" a

paid researcher?

I find this interesting.

Jack

PS...I decided to google David Blackburst, and discovered that he is AKA

(also known as) STEVEN ROY.

ATTENTION STEVEN ROY, Forum Member:

Did you provide research for Judyth Baker? Are you also known as David Blackburst?

Thanks.

Jack

Jack:

I'd prefer not to be involved with this thread at this time, but...

Yes, my original AOL Screen Name/nom de plume was Blackburst, and I still use it as an e-mail address. I have done quite a bit of original research on Ferrie and the New Orleans cast.

No, I have never done research on behalf of Baker. In the process of a number of e-mail and forum exchanges, a small amount of info has passed back and forth. Baker appears to have read some of my older on-line material.

Just a quick quote from the Forum Rules:

"(iv) Members should not make personal attacks on other members. Nor should references be made to their abilities as researchers. Most importantly, the motivations of the poster should not be questioned."

In JPEG compression, some shapes retain their curves, but others take on hard, blocky edges. I posted the girl picture, because it retains curves, but also takes on blocky straight lines. It is very similar to your image. The similarity is self-evident, and I don't understand why you can't see the similarity.

Of course the bonnet will not turn into a bowling ball. Nobody could perfectly replicate such a thing, especially since we don't know what it was that the man was carrying.

The point is that the MAN WAS CARRYING NOTHING. The ball with the stripe appears ONLY IN ONE FRAME.

That is a significant anomaly to be addressed!

I disagree. I see him carrying what appears to be a jacket, and perhaps a bag or lunchbox. But the thought that one frame was changed to insert the image you see as a bowling ball is nonsensical.

 I must beg forgiveness. I hit edit rather than reply...and mistakenly erased your post Stephen. Please excuse the mistake...Here it is Sorry again! Very sorry....

As you said, there are other possibilities. I don't know if we can be sure that he didn't use the photos to sell himself. As I noted, he appears to have done that at least once (although, I believe the photo no longer exists.) And he seemed to have been selling himself in New Orleans later in the year.

I don't think there's a consensus that we can stop looking at pieces of evidence and look only at the big picture.

Mexico City? I can accept that he might have been impersonated, but there is other evidence which, if genuine, suggests that it was the real Oswald.

There is a simple question that I use to try and make sense of the photos issue: Why would Lee take these? He was as secretive as they come. He was tight lipped. There's no reason that anyone in their right mind would want to take these photos of themselves with two ideological opposing political newspapers and the firearms that they will later use in the crime of the century.

Why would anyone want to frame themselves?

Lemme play Devil's Advocate here:

In order to postulate that there is no reason why something would be done, you have to eliminate all possibilities. But aren't there possibilities here? Like selling himself as an urban guerrilla, armed revolutionary type? I think we see signs that he was trying to do that in other ways. And didn't he send one of these photos to one of the left wing organizations he corresponded with (my memory escapes me -was it the Militant?) Can we rule out this sort of possibility?

Jim Fetzer wrote:

"When separate photographs made at different times with a hand-held camera are turned into transparencies and placed on top of each other, nothing should match."

Jim, I was wondering if you could cite some third-party source on why this is.

Why are people afraid to express an opinion on the ball with the stripe?

BECAUSE IT'S NOT A BALL WITH STRIPE!!

and if it WAS a ball with a stripe, what's it have to do with the shooting of JFK? Maybe it's some kind of CIA/Cuban device? Or is it a remote camera? or space-age tripod? Or is it (insert anything you can think of here)

Perhaps its nothing more than an old fashioned Henway.

OK, I'll play straight man: What's a Henway?

In JPEG compression, some shapes retain their curves, but others take on hard, blocky edges. I posted the girl picture, because it retains curves, but also takes on blocky straight lines. It is very similar to your image. The similarity is self-evident, and I don't understand why you can't see the similarity.

Of course the bonnet will not turn into a bowling ball. Nobody could perfectly replicate such a thing, especially since we don't know what it was that the man was carrying.

Analyze this:

In your post #27, look at the two lighter colored blocks immediately below what appears to be the black line. They are the same width and horizontal orientation as the black line. One of the artifacts of JPEG compression is to create hard edges where none exist. These are all JPEG digital tiling.

Please produce an example of "digital tiling" producing a circle with a black stripe.

Blow up nearly any JPEG image and you'll see hard-edged blocks just like these! It's the JPEG process trying to approximate what it thinks goes on that spot. In TV, we call it digital tiling.

Look at your "stripe". About 2/3 of the way across, there is a lighter block. And below and above it, directly attached to it are slightly shaded blocks of the tan color, making sort of a 3-tier shape. How could that happen in nature? No, the hard edges are created by the JPEG process. How can you not see that?

Why would an animator - whether trying to create false evidence, or just goofing on us, or just being sloppy - create a round shape with a stripe, and then make the stripe imperfect? And, in 1963, just happen to use a design that matches artifacts of a system not to be developed for another 30 years?

If I imported it correctly, an exapmle of JPEG compression on an old image:

Analyze this:

In your post #27, look at the two lighter colored blocks immediately below what appears to be the black line. They are the same width and horizontal orientation as the black line. One of the artifacts of JPEG compression is to create hard edges where none exist. These are all JPEG digital tiling.

Just my 2 cents- forgive me for saying this, but it needs to be said:

I think this whole business of "seeing things" in blurry photos and film frames is a very dodgy thing. It's a bit like a Rorschach Test: you see what you want to see. (And it's exacerbated by the compression artifacts of the JPEG images posted here.) To think you see something in these images is one thing. To doggedly defend certainty about it is to elevate a possibility to a fact.